What Do We Wanna Believe?

Does it really come down to this?

In these posts, I have documented my journey of rethinking some of my long-held faith convictions, and the process of changing, if necessary, some of those beliefs. I have found, along the way, occasionally a newer idea will emerge, challenging my current revision. The newer idea isn’t a rejection of the revised idea, it’s supplemental. These recurrences have become the essence of my personal process of rethinking my beliefs over the last 25+ years.

As I began this process, I asked myself why I believed what I believed – a question which should never be confused with asking about the evidence supporting my beliefs. Rather, it speaks to the influences on the evidence, and on my thinking, and how it shaped those beliefs. I concluded, in my case, the answer to the question was a blend of:

• Biblical support for my beliefs

• The influence of Biblical interpretations

• The influence of Biblical interpretations of those who taught me what to believe

From 50,000 feet, the Bible is the assumed basis of Christian beliefs. But we all know one Bible has generated many different beliefs. I recognized a common source of different beliefs to be the two models of Biblical interpretation which have dominated Christian thought. My thinking naturally followed; all those people who taught me, like all teachers, had been taught one interpretive model or the other. In my case, only one model was taught to me as true. I actually didn’t know the other model existed – I was taught those views were misinterpretations of the model I was being taught.

My teachers were taught, and their teachers were taught.

For many years, I became convinced those three factors answered the question for me, and most likely, for others. I was satisfied.

But, in the process of continuous rethink, I uncovered a fourth influence; specifically, what the person wants to believe. It kept showing itself to me, and eventually, I felt I should add this fourth factor to the blended three that shaped my original answer to the question of why I believe what I believe.

Is it possible why I believe something is because I want to believe it?

That question was present in my previous thinking, but hidden in the darkness of a more passive and genteel description of what could harshly be called victimization. I use “victimization” in the sense I accepted my role as passive – a recipient of the teachings of others. However, in this revised thinking, the subjective became objective.

Something besides believing what I want to believe was also present in my thinking. I had been taught, and strongly accepted, better information changes minds.

It doesn’t, always, does it?

We’ve all experienced people discarding viable evidence and believing a delusion. A familiar example is the people who honestly believed O.J. was innocent and was actively looking for the actual killers. Some people still believe the earth is flat. Some people refuse to believe we landed on the moon in 1969. Some people deny the Holocaust. Some people believe Elvis is still alive. Shall I continue?

But, what does why we believe something have anything to do with O.J. and Elvis?

It seems people can refuse to believe the Holocaust happened, or confidently believe the earth is flat, in spite of fairly solid evidence. So, there is clearly more to belief than just processing evidentiary information. It seems plausible some people just want to believe certain things regardless of the evidence. And maybe the unorthodox nature of a belief isn’t the indication this behavior is occurring – maybe we all do it. It’s not just the unorthodox nature of the belief in a flat earth that indicates believing what we want to believe is taking place – perhaps we all believe what we want to believe. Yes, maybe even those who believe orthodox positions, like a spherical earth, or genocide against the Jews really took place under the Nazi regime, or that Elvis died in 1977, are simply believing what they want to believe – whether the belief is orthodox, unorthodox, evidenced, or imaginary.

I’ve recently begun watching a semester of the NYU Introduction to Sociology class, only because of an uneducated fascination with the subject. The class didn’t prompt my thinking regarding people believing what they want to believe, but it certainly offers possibilities as to why it might occur. As I’ve only dipped my toes into the pool of sociology, I’m certainly no expert. But now, I have words for frequent observations I’ve made in my life; specifically, the common human trait of ethnocentrism and the innate human practice of conformity. I’m not qualified to lecture on either topic, but in the space remaining, I will try to demonstrate how these ideas fit within this post.

Ethnocentrism is the belief that specific groups consider their group to be the standard of perspective, beliefs and practices. They may even think everyone who sits at the cool kids’ table sees things the same way, even if they belong to a different group. Sociology has done a pretty good job of exposing the fallacy of ethnocentrism, but it exists and thrives in human societies, in spite of the exposure. In fact, sociologists have done such a good job of debunking this mythical perspective that the pendulum has swung toward relativism – the idea there is no universal standard, and acceptability is strictly defined through the eyes of each individual group. The reality of ethnocentrism leads to the danger of relativism.

Conformity is a sociologist’s word describing a person’s need to belong to a group, and specifically, the extent to which a person will “conform” their perspectives, beliefs, and practices to retain good standing in the group.

Is it possible, in spite of the volume of information which exists on a variety of topics, some people will hold on to, or modify, their belief to maintain their position in a group?

Yes.

And the question remains, for all of us, do we believe what we want to believe?